PDA

View Full Version : Latest Gallup Poll tough news for Obama...



Statler Waldorf
10-19-2012, 05:00 PM
Republicans tend to outperform the Gallup polls, if that remains true then the latest rolling Gallup poll is very bad news for Obama...

Romney 52%
Obama 45%

No challenger has ever lost the election after breaking 50 percent in the Gallup poll. Additionally, Obama has yet to break 50 percent in this poll and his numbers are heading in the wrong direction to do so.

Locke
10-19-2012, 05:01 PM
For ****'s sake, can any of you people post a damn link when you start these horse **** threads? This is getting ridiculous...

Statler Waldorf
10-19-2012, 05:41 PM
That's because I saw it on the News genius boy, not everyone gets their news from the web. You should learn how to use google though, I was able to find a link in 10 seconds...

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/262809-gallup-poll-romney-opens-up-7-point-lead-among-likely-voters

cuzinvinny
10-19-2012, 05:48 PM
That's because I saw it on the News genius boy, not everyone gets their news from the web. You should learn how to use google though, I was able to find a link in 10 seconds...

Hmmm, maybe he waiting for the Government to do it for him

Statler Waldorf
10-19-2012, 05:52 PM
Hmmm, maybe he waiting for the Government to do it for him

Hahaha, this is hilarious.

Locke
10-19-2012, 05:57 PM
When you 2 are done touching each other in the corner, I'll remind you that message board etiquette dictates that whoever posts these threads is expected to post links to whatever it is they are referencing. Your link itself references the fact that Obama is polling a lead in both Florida and Ohio. That's an Obama victory right there. I seriously cannot wait until November 7. All of you guys are going to be in your basements crying yourself to sleep, masturbating to pictures of Limbaugh using your own tears as lubricant...

TheWalrus
10-19-2012, 06:29 PM
The Gallup Poll is an outlier right now, not part of a trend. Rasmussen has it as a tie and the IBD/TIPP, Hartford Courant, ABC/Washington Post and Politico tracking polls -- the other most recent national tracking polls -- all have Obama between one and three points ahead.

As a result, the RCP average of tracking polls actually has Obama slightly ahead right now.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

So if you want to have a fiesta in your pantalones over the Gallup Poll, go ahead. Just know a hard rain's gonna fall.

Tetragrammaton
10-19-2012, 06:53 PM
Gallup also gave Obama an eleven point lead the day before Election Day 2008.

LouPhinFan
10-19-2012, 07:03 PM
I think what the correct statement is "No one has lost the presidential election when Gallop polling at over 50% in the middle of October."

For what it's worth anyways.

Statler Waldorf
10-23-2012, 05:48 PM
When you 2 are done touching each other in the corner, I'll remind you that message board etiquette dictates that whoever posts these threads is expected to post links to whatever it is they are referencing. Your link itself references the fact that Obama is polling a lead in both Florida and Ohio. That's an Obama victory right there. I seriously cannot wait until November 7. All of you guys are going to be in your basements crying yourself to sleep, masturbating to pictures of Limbaugh using your own tears as lubricant...

You’re such a whiner, a person is only required to post a link if they are referring to something online, I was referring to a poll I saw on the News, I gave the name of the polling organization and the name of the poll, and the numbers I gave were accurate, stop being such a drama queen.

Locke
10-23-2012, 05:53 PM
You’re such a whiner, a person is only required to post a link if they are referring to something online, I was referring to a poll I saw on the News, I gave the name of the polling organization and the name of the poll, and the numbers I gave were accurate, stop being such a drama queen.

Whatever you say, hoss.

I'd just suggest having your picture of Limbaugh and your jerk-off rag ready...

phins_4_ever
10-23-2012, 06:04 PM
You’re such a whiner, a person is only required to post a link if they are referring to something online, I was referring to a poll I saw on the News, I gave the name of the polling organization and the name of the poll, and the numbers I gave were accurate, stop being such a drama queen.

What a way to bring a useless thread back to the top. :lol:

Statler Waldorf
10-24-2012, 03:42 PM
What a way to bring a useless thread back to the top. :lol:

So you are bringing a thread to the top by complaining about me bringing a thread to the top? Now that's funny.

Locke
10-24-2012, 03:48 PM
So you are bringing a thread to the top by complaining about me bringing a thread to the top? Now that's funny.

Now you're bringing a useless thread back to the top by complaining about someone else complaining about bringing a useless thread to the top. I can't wait until Nov 7 so all these clowns disappear for another 3 years...

phins_4_ever
10-24-2012, 07:14 PM
So you are bringing a thread to the top by complaining about me bringing a thread to the top? Now that's funny.

It was on top when I posted. Otherwise why would I write top. Duh. :crazy:

BTW. No updates on the Gallup poll? Oh yeah. Romney only 3 points ahead now. Obama dug into the lead. Maybe people wake up and smell the coffee.

CRAZYDOLFAN305
10-24-2012, 11:59 PM
Lmao if you Republicans really think this election is going to be close. Those polls are calling land lines. Who do you know still uses land lines? Obama has the Women Vote, Black Vote, Latino, Young Vote and Asian Vote. Low information voters can't make up that difference. Just get your crying towels out now..

Statler Waldorf
10-25-2012, 03:33 PM
Now you're bringing a useless thread back to the top by complaining about someone else complaining about bringing a useless thread to the top. I can't wait until Nov 7 so all these clowns disappear for another 3 years...

You really are slow on the uptake aren’t you? I have no problem with my thread being brought to the top. Obama is not going to win this election, he’s now down in Pennsylvania, Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada, Colorado, North Carolina, Virginia and has now lost his lead in Ohio, Michigan, and Iowa (Wisconsin and Minnesota are also now statistical dead heats), this thing is over. Romney will comfortably exceed 270 electoral votes.


BTW. No updates on the Gallup poll? Oh yeah. Romney only 3 points ahead now. Obama dug into the lead. Maybe people wake up and smell the coffee.

You’re celebrating because your boy is still down 3 points? The undecided voters always bank for the challenger so that’s still Romney 53 Obama 47, your boy is done.


Lmao if you Republicans really think this election is going to be close. Those polls are calling land lines. Who do you know still uses land lines? Obama has the Women Vote, Black Vote, Latino, Young Vote and Asian Vote. Low information voters can't make up that difference. Just get your crying towels out now..

How’s the weather there in Oz?

CRAZYDOLFAN305
10-25-2012, 04:06 PM
You really are slow on the uptake aren’t you? I have no problem with my thread being brought to the top. Obama is not going to win this election, he’s now down in Pennsylvania, Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada, Colorado, North Carolina, Virginia and has now lost his lead in Ohio, Michigan, and Iowa (Wisconsin and Minnesota are also now statistical dead heats), this thing is over. Romney will comfortably exceed 270 electoral votes.



You’re celebrating because your boy is still down 3 points? The undecided voters always bank for the challenger so that’s still Romney 53 Obama 47, your boy is done.



How’s the weather there in Oz?

Your logic flawed just as the polls, you are on crack if you think Romney is really in the lead in all these states.

Statler Waldorf
10-25-2012, 04:08 PM
Your logic flawed just as the polls, you are on crack if you think Romney is really in the lead in all these states.

How is my logic flawed? Please demonstrate your assertion to be true.

phins_4_ever
10-25-2012, 06:07 PM
You really are slow on the uptake aren’t you? I have no problem with my thread being brought to the top. Obama is not going to win this election, he’s now down in Pennsylvania, Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada, Colorado, North Carolina, Virginia and has now lost his lead in Ohio, Michigan, and Iowa (Wisconsin and Minnesota are also now statistical dead heats), this thing is over. Romney will comfortably exceed 270 electoral votes.



You’re celebrating because your boy is still down 3 points? The undecided voters always bank for the challenger so that’s still Romney 53 Obama 47, your boy is done.



How’s the weather there in Oz?

I celebrate? Hardly. Assumption on your side. But if it makes you happy.

Statler Waldorf
10-25-2012, 07:04 PM
I celebrate? Hardly. Assumption on your side. But if it makes you happy.

You seemed pretty excited to me.

phins_4_ever
10-25-2012, 08:04 PM
You seemed pretty excited to me.

Because you walk around with blinders. How would you know how 'excited' I was? Can you see me through your screen? Based on a few letters you can make the determination what excitement level I was on?
:lol:

fishfanmiami
10-25-2012, 08:26 PM
This is the best place to get election polling that's been accurate the last 2 elections.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

Nate silver used to do baseball stats and is a fricking genius at this stuff. He was with in .3% last election.

The president still has a Elect collage lead but Romney has drawn about even in the popular vote.

CRAZYDOLFAN305
10-25-2012, 08:37 PM
How is my logic flawed? Please demonstrate your assertion to be true.

The latest estimates of telephone coverage by the National Center for Health Statistics found that a quarter of U.S. households have only a cell phone and cannot be reached by a landline telephone. Cell-only adults are demographically and politically different from those who live in landline households; as a result, election polls that rely only on landline samples may be biased.

"fundamentals"--factors such as the state of the economy, the role of foreign wars and whether the incumbent president is running. At best, polls represent a snapshot of the electorate on a given day, rather than a forecast of the eventual outcome.

Yet even this modest view has its problems. A snapshot may be seen as worthless if it is clear that the picture must eventually change. In four of the last five presidential elections, the eventual popular vote winner has trailed in the polls at some point, often by a substantial margin. Moreover, these changes are often predictable, as shifts usually move in the direction suggested by forecasts based on readings of "bread and peace": the state of the economy and U.S. standing abroad.

Polling methodology problems. Pollsters also face statistical modeling challenges.

"Likely voters." Pollsters attempt to survey the subset of the population that will vote on election day, rather than the entire adult population. (This makes sense, given that these polls are geared toward an election and not an abstract representation of the public's preference, such as presidential job approval ratings.) Some polls survey only registered voters, while others will ask a series of questions designed to screen out those who are not deemed 'likely voters':

--Misapplied technique? These screening techniques help give a more accurate picture of the electorate in polls conducted shortly before election day. However, polls with "likely voter screens" portray a very volatile electorate, with levels of fluctuation that appear unrealistic. Crucially, it is more difficult to predict likely voters. There is some evidence to suggest that likely-voter screens, in particular, may actually make early polls less accurate.

--Turnout guesswork. Turnout is not easy to predict, even in principle. For example, anecdotal reports suggest that Barack Obama's campaign has a large advantage in the 'ground game' of door-to-door canvassing (in terms of measurable campaign activity such as money invested, volunteers enlisted, and field offices opened). This could conceivably translate into a higher Democratic turnout than models based on past elections predict.

Undecided voters. In an apparent paradox, polls move a great deal over the course of the campaign but usually claim that only a small segment of the population is "undecided." Yet if 85% to 95% of the electorate has already "decided," then early polls should track the November results closely--and they do not. If pollsters' estimates of undecided voters early in the election campaign were meaningful, then the race would essentially be over when one candidate's lead exceeds the remaining number of undecided voters. This paradox has two main causes:

-Pollsters' questions. Aiming for a momentary snapshot, pollsters almost always ask respondents whom they would vote for "if the election were held today." Many also use a follow-up probe to see if those who say they are unsure "lean" in a particular direction.

Dolphins9954
10-25-2012, 08:58 PM
Guess what happens after the election???????




Nothing.

Locke
10-25-2012, 09:06 PM
Guess what happens after the election???????




Nothing.

Bingo.

No one posting here has experienced a difference in their lives as a result of Bush leaving office and Obama taking it. No one is going to experience a difference in 2013, regardless of who wins...

Tetragrammaton
10-25-2012, 09:22 PM
Between early voting, absentee ballots, and a more partisan electorate, the actual decision-making in voting is more or less over. It is all about turnout at this point.

CRAZYDOLFAN305
10-26-2012, 03:35 PM
Bingo.

No one posting here has experienced a difference in their lives as a result of Bush leaving office and Obama taking it. No one is going to experience a difference in 2013, regardless of who wins...

What?

Tell that to the millions of people who kept their jobs from the Auto Bail out that.
The millions of people who got to keep their houses under the housing plan.
Or the millions of teachers, firefighters, police officers that kept their job because of the stimulus plan.
The millions of families that were able to feed their kids because of the unemployment benefit extensions.
The millions of small business that got tax breaks to provide health insurance to their employees.

I can list hundreds of reasons why things have changed under Obama, but why bother, you have access to the internet just like I do, it's so simple to keep yourself inform, but WTF ever. Nevermind.. I wonder what kind of ****ing bubble you people live IN. 2011 congress was the most active congress in the history of this country under democrat control. Question how many members are in the House ? Do you even know that ? How about the Senate? Do you know that? What is reconciliation ? What is a filibuster? Without during a Google search do you know any of these answers? I bet you don't!

2011 Congress Under Democrat Control The most active congress in the history of this country.

10. Passing Credit Card Reform (CARD Act)
Protects Americans from unfair and misleading credit card practices.

9. Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
Ensures that all workers in America are paid what they deserve, regardless of race, gender, or age.

8. Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan
President Obama nominated and the Senate confirmed Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court

7. Student Loan Reform
Helps make college more affordable for students and families.

6. Wall Street Reform
Holds Wall Street accountable, ends "too big to fail" bailouts, and enacts the strongest consumer protections in history.

5. The New START Treaty
Keeps America safe and strengthens our global leadership on nuclear weapons issues.

4. ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Repeal
Ends the discriminatory policy preventing gays and lesbians from serving in America’s armed forces.

3. Ending combat operations in Iraq
Effectively ends Operation Iraqi Freedom and withdraws 100,000 troops.

2. The Recovery Act
Saves and creates millions of jobs, investing unprecedented resources in building a new foundation for our country, and preventing a second Great Depression.

1. The Affordable Care Act
Reforms our country’s broken health care system by holding insurance companies accountable, lowering costs, ensuring greater choice, and improving the quality of care for all Americans.

Since the republicans took over the house PLEASE TELL ME ONE LEGISLATION THEY HAVE PASSED TO MATCH ANYONE OF THOSE I LISTED TO HELP THE NORMAL AMERICAN. NAME ME JUST ONE. JUST ****ING ONE. ALL THEY HAVE DONE IS ABORTION AND VOTER SUPPRESSION THAT'S IT.

Locke
10-26-2012, 03:48 PM
What?

Tell that to the millions of people who kept their jobs from the Auto Bail out that.
The millions of people who got to keep their houses under the housing plan.
Or the millions of teachers, firefighters, police officers that kept their job because of the stimulus plan.
The millions of families that were able to feed their kids because of the unemployment benefit extensions.
The millions of small business that got tax breaks to provide health insurance to their employees.

I can list hundreds of reasons why things have changed under Obama, but why bother, you have access to the internet just like I do, it's so simple to keep yourself inform, but WTF ever. Nevermind.. I wonder what kind of ****ing bubble you people live. 2011 congress was the most active congress in the history of this country under democrat control. Question how many members are in the House ? Do you even know that ? How about the Senate? Do you know that? What is reconciliation ? What is a filibuster? Without during a Google search do you know any of these answers? I bet you don't!

2011 Congress Under Democrat Control The most active congress in the history of this country.

10. Passing Credit Card Reform (CARD Act)
Protects Americans from unfair and misleading credit card practices.

9. Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
Ensures that all workers in America are paid what they deserve, regardless of race, gender, or age.

8. Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan
President Obama nominated and the Senate confirmed Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court

7. Student Loan Reform
Helps make college more affordable for students and families.

6. Wall Street Reform
Holds Wall Street accountable, ends "too big to fail" bailouts, and enacts the strongest consumer protections in history.

5. The New START Treaty
Keeps America safe and strengthens our global leadership on nuclear weapons issues.

4. ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Repeal
Ends the discriminatory policy preventing gays and lesbians from serving in America’s armed forces.

3. Ending combat operations in Iraq
Effectively ends Operation Iraqi Freedom and withdraws 100,000 troops.

2. The Recovery Act
Saves and creates millions of jobs, investing unprecedented resources in building a new foundation for our country, and preventing a second Great Depression.

1. The Affordable Care Act
Reforms our country’s broken health care system by holding insurance companies accountable, lowering costs, ensuring greater choice, and improving the quality of care for all Americans.

Since the republicans took over the house PLEASE TELL ME ONE LEGISLATION THEY HAVE PASSED TO MATCH ANYONE OF THOSE I LISTED TO HELP THE NORMAL AMERICAN. NAME ME JUST ONE. JUST ****ING ONE. ALL THEY HAVE DONE IS ABORTION AND VOTER SUPPRESSION THAT'S IT.

Did your life change between 2008 and now...?

JackFinfan
10-26-2012, 03:54 PM
What?

Tell that to the millions of people who kept their jobs from the Auto Bail out that.
The millions of people who got to keep their houses under the housing plan.
Or the millions of teachers, firefighters, police officers that kept their job because of the stimulus plan.
The millions of families that were able to feed their kids because of the unemployment benefit extensions.
The millions of small business that got tax breaks to provide health insurance to their employees.

I can list hundreds of reasons why things have changed under Obama, but why bother, you have access to the internet just like I do, it's so simple to keep yourself inform, but WTF ever. Nevermind.. I wonder what kind of ****ing bubble you people live IN. 2011 congress was the most active congress in the history of this country under democrat control. Question how many members are in the House ? Do you even know that ? How about the Senate? Do you know that? What is reconciliation ? What is a filibuster? Without during a Google search do you know any of these answers? I bet you don't!

2011 Congress Under Democrat Control The most active congress in the history of this country.

10. Passing Credit Card Reform (CARD Act)
Protects Americans from unfair and misleading credit card practices.

9. Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
Ensures that all workers in America are paid what they deserve, regardless of race, gender, or age.

8. Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan
President Obama nominated and the Senate confirmed Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court

7. Student Loan Reform
Helps make college more affordable for students and families.

6. Wall Street Reform
Holds Wall Street accountable, ends "too big to fail" bailouts, and enacts the strongest consumer protections in history.

5. The New START Treaty
Keeps America safe and strengthens our global leadership on nuclear weapons issues.

4. ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Repeal
Ends the discriminatory policy preventing gays and lesbians from serving in America’s armed forces.

3. Ending combat operations in Iraq
Effectively ends Operation Iraqi Freedom and withdraws 100,000 troops.

2. The Recovery Act
Saves and creates millions of jobs, investing unprecedented resources in building a new foundation for our country, and preventing a second Great Depression.

1. The Affordable Care Act
Reforms our country’s broken health care system by holding insurance companies accountable, lowering costs, ensuring greater choice, and improving the quality of care for all Americans.

Since the republicans took over the house PLEASE TELL ME ONE LEGISLATION THEY HAVE PASSED TO MATCH ANYONE OF THOSE I LISTED TO HELP THE NORMAL AMERICAN. NAME ME JUST ONE. JUST ****ING ONE. ALL THEY HAVE DONE IS ABORTION AND VOTER SUPPRESSION THAT'S IT.

Rich people benefit more when Republicans control more of the gov't, poor people benefit more when Democrats control more of the gov't, and the middle class gets ****ed either way. That's been the story for quite some time, and I don't see it changing anytime soon.

Statler Waldorf
10-26-2012, 03:55 PM
[QUOTE=CRAZYDOLFAN305;1064472270]The latest estimates of telephone coverage by the National Center for Health Statistics found that a quarter of U.S. households have only a cell phone and cannot be reached by a landline telephone. Cell-only adults are demographically and politically different from those who live in landline households; as a result, election polls that rely only on landline samples may be biased.

"fundamentals"--factors such as the state of the economy, the role of foreign wars and whether the incumbent president is running. At best, polls represent a snapshot of the electorate on a given day, rather than a forecast of the eventual outcome.

Yet even this modest view has its problems. A snapshot may be seen as worthless if it is clear that the picture must eventually change. In four of the last five presidential elections, the eventual popular vote winner has trailed in the polls at some point, often by a substantial margin. Moreover, these changes are often predictable, as shifts usually move in the direction suggested by forecasts based on readings of "bread and peace": the state of the economy and U.S. standing abroad.

Polling methodology problems. Pollsters also face statistical modeling challenges.

"Likely voters." Pollsters attempt to survey the subset of the population that will vote on election day, rather than the entire adult population. (This makes sense, given that these polls are geared toward an election and not an abstract representation of the public's preference, such as presidential job approval ratings.) Some polls survey only registered voters, while others will ask a series of questions designed to screen out those who are not deemed 'likely voters':

--Misapplied technique? These screening techniques help give a more accurate picture of the electorate in polls conducted shortly before election day. However, polls with "likely voter screens" portray a very volatile electorate, with levels of fluctuation that appear unrealistic. Crucially, it is more difficult to predict likely voters. There is some evidence to suggest that likely-voter screens, in particular, may actually make early polls less accurate.

--Turnout guesswork. Turnout is not easy to predict, even in principle. For example, anecdotal reports suggest that Barack Obama's campaign has a large advantage in the 'ground game' of door-to-door canvassing (in terms of measurable campaign activity such as money invested, volunteers enlisted, and field offices opened). This could conceivably translate into a higher Democratic turnout than models based on past elections predict.

Undecided voters. In an apparent paradox, polls move a great deal over the course of the campaign but usually claim that only a small segment of the population is "undecided." Yet if 85% to 95% of the electorate has already "decided," then early polls should track the November results closely--and they do not. If pollsters' estimates of undecided voters early in the election campaign were meaningful, then the race would essentially be over when one candidate's lead exceeds the remaining number of undecided voters. This paradox has two main causes:

-Pollsters' questions. Aiming for a momentary snapshot, pollsters almost always ask respondents whom they would vote for "if the election were held today." Many also use a follow-up probe to see if those who say they are unsure "lean" in a particular direction.
Huh? You asserted that my logic was flawed; none of this demonstrates that my logic was actually flawed. So I will ask again, please demonstrate that my logic was actually flawed as you assert.

Do only Obama supporters own cell phones? You can try to come up with reasons you think your boy is going to win despite all of the polling and historical evidence that suggests he’s going to get knocked around on the 6th, but I will stick to actual numbers and history.

JackFinfan
10-26-2012, 04:12 PM
[QUOTE]
Huh? You asserted that my logic was flawed; none of this demonstrates that my logic was actually flawed. So I will ask again, please demonstrate that my logic was actually flawed as you assert.

Do only Obama supporters own cell phones? You can try to come up with reasons you think your boy is going to win despite all of the polling and historical evidence that suggests he’s going to get knocked around on the 6th, but I will stick to actual numbers and history.

I don't think you would disagree that young voters tend to lean left, and I would assume that the cell phone only households are mostly young people. You say you want to only look at historical trends, but I think CrazyDolfan is suggesting history may be an inaccurate predictor of this election, because cell phone only households weren't popular 20 years ago :). Hell, I'd even say that cell phone only households weren't even slightly popular 4-8 years ago.

All that being said, we'll see which one of you is right in about 2 weeks. I personally wouldn't be suprised if the election went to Romney or Obama. I think it'll be fairly close.

Clipse
10-26-2012, 04:33 PM
Rich people benefit more when Republicans control more of the gov't, poor people benefit more when Democrats control more of the gov't, and the middle class gets ****ed either way. That's been the story for quite some time, and I don't see it changing anytime soon.

Pretty much this. Romney. Obama. Bush. Same ****, different pile. and the middle class is ****ed either way.

Statler Waldorf
10-26-2012, 04:43 PM
QUOTE=JackFinfan;1064473040]


I don't think you would disagree that young voters tend to lean left, and I would assume that the cell phone only households are mostly young people. You say you want to only look at historical trends, but I think CrazyDolfan is suggesting history may be an inaccurate predictor of this election, because cell phone only households weren't popular 20 years ago . Hell, I'd even say that cell phone only households weren't even slightly popular 4-8 years ago.

All that being said, we'll see which one of you is right in about 2 weeks. I personally wouldn't be suprised if the election went to Romney or Obama. I think it'll be fairly close.

Fair enough, but one thing we know about young voters, they’re hard to find because young people just don’t turn out to vote (especially considering the fact that Halo 4 comes out next week :-P ). This isn’t going to be like 2008, we should expect to see voter turnout very similar to every other election. I don’t think Romney is going to win simply because I want him to, I knew Obama would win last time, I knew Bush would win in ’04 and I honestly didn’t know who would win in 2000, I think the numbers clearly indicate Romney is going to win this thing, if the roles were reversed and Obama was the challenger I’d say he was going to win. The undecided vote always banks for the challenger, so that’s bad news for Obama in any poll where he is under 50 percent, and that just happens to be about 95 percent of them.

JackFinfan
10-26-2012, 04:50 PM
QUOTE=JackFinfan;1064473040]

Fair enough, but one thing we know about young voters, they’re hard to find because young people just don’t turn out to vote (especially considering the fact that Halo 4 comes out next week :-P ). This isn’t going to be like 2008, we should expect to see voter turnout very similar to every other election. I don’t think Romney is going to win simply because I want him to, I knew Obama would win last time, I knew Bush would win in ’04 and I honestly didn’t know who would win in 2000, I think the numbers clearly indicate Romney is going to win this thing, if the roles were reversed and Obama was the challenger I’d say he was going to win. The undecided vote always banks for the challenger, so that’s bad news for Obama in any poll where he is under 50 percent, and that just happens to be about 95 percent of them.

I agree, the young vote won't come out and vote for Obama like they did in 2008.

CRAZYDOLFAN305
10-26-2012, 05:26 PM
[QUOTE]
Huh? You asserted that my logic was flawed; none of this demonstrates that my logic was actually flawed. So I will ask again, please demonstrate that my logic was actually flawed as you assert.

Do only Obama supporters own cell phones? You can try to come up with reasons you think your boy is going to win despite all of the polling and historical evidence that suggests he’s going to get knocked around on the 6th, but I will stick to actual numbers and history.

Delusional, you're on crack if you think what Romney's prescribing the rest of the country is buying. The republican way of governing is no longer suitable. All you guys ever give us is wars, deficits, and tax cuts to the rich. Bush didn't win the popular vote his brother gave him Florida, and the supreme court judges his dad nominated gave him the presidency.


List the economy policy as the reason you are voting for Romney?

As a matter of fact, aside from your pure hatred for Obama, give me the reasons why you think Romney is going to win the election ?

And yes, most people that are going to be voting for Obama owns cell phones..

TheWalrus
11-07-2012, 09:00 PM
You really are slow on the uptake aren’t you? I have no problem with my thread being brought to the top. Obama is not going to win this election, he’s now down in Pennsylvania, Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada, Colorado, North Carolina, Virginia and has now lost his lead in Ohio, Michigan, and Iowa (Wisconsin and Minnesota are also now statistical dead heats), this thing is over. Romney will comfortably exceed 270 electoral votes.



You’re celebrating because your boy is still down 3 points? The undecided voters always bank for the challenger so that’s still Romney 53 Obama 47, your boy is done.


How’s the weather there in Oz?

This seems like a good time to revisit this thread and especially this post.

:lol:

Where you at, Statler?

CRAZYDOLFAN305
11-07-2012, 09:04 PM
Like I said they were all delusional and just for their sake, if they weren't part of the .0001 percentile and don't make $250,001 or more a year they should be glad he (Romney Didn't Win)

Buddy
11-07-2012, 09:37 PM
Like I said they were all delusional and just for their sake, if they weren't part of the .0001 percentile and don't make $250,001 or more a year they should be glad he (Romney Didn't Win)

What you don't understand, my friend, is that although the focus was on "the 1%", anyone who makes enough to pay taxes will come to regret this election. In time, most all Americans will regret this unfortunate decision except those who are completely dependent and only interested in "getting theirs." About 3-4% of households here in the US make $250K+/year and about 47% don't pay any taxes so that leaves roughly 1/2 of the household supposedly not affected by any of this. How long do you think it will be before $100K is the new $250K? Is Washington all of a sudden going to wake up and be fiscally responsible? We just reelected a president, senate, and house that haven't passed a budget in four years and wonder why our country is broke. The answer is to just tax more money in and redistribute it? Do you think the leches will be satisfied in the next election with just pillaging the system? Heck no, their vote will be far more expensive the next time around and taxes will be on the rise again. People have grown accustomed to government handouts and nothing short of cataclysmic collapse will wean them, I fear.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

irish fin fan
11-07-2012, 10:05 PM
This seems like a good time to revisit this thread and especially this post.

:lol:

Where you at, Statler?

Like all his views they turn out to be the same ... Wrong.

rob19
11-07-2012, 10:06 PM
What you don't understand, my friend, is that although the focus was on "the 1%", anyone who makes enough to pay taxes will come to regret this election. In time, most all Americans will regret this unfortunate decision except those who are completely dependent and only interested in "getting theirs." About 3-4% of households here in the US make $250K+/year and about 47% don't pay any taxes so that leaves roughly 1/2 of the household supposedly not affected by any of this. How long do you think it will be before $100K is the new $250K? Is Washington all of a sudden going to wake up and be fiscally responsible? We just reelected a president, senate, and house that haven't passed a budget in four years and wonder why our country is broke. The answer is to just tax more money in and redistribute it? Do you think the leches will be satisfied in the next election with just pillaging the system? Heck no, their vote will be far more expensive the next time around and taxes will be on the rise again. People have grown accustomed to government handouts and nothing short of cataclysmic collapse will wean them, I fear.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

"But since I write about tax and budget issues, let me make a few serious points about the 46.4% of American households who paid no federal income taxes for 2011. First of all, according to the Tax Policy Center, more than 60% of those non-income tax paying households did pay federal payroll taxes—meaning Social Security and Medicare taxes. (Considering all Americans households, including those that owed income tax, 62% paid more in payroll taxes than in federal income taxes.)

What of the 18.1% of U.S. households that paid neither income nor payroll taxes? More than half of them were headed by a senior–in other words, by someone who paid payroll taxes and likely some income taxes too, in the past. (No, the amount the elderly have paid in does not cover the cost of the Medicare benefits they are now getting. And that is true despite the fact that in a Romney TV ad attacking Obamacare’s cuts to the growth in Medicare spending"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2012/09/17/memo-to-mitt-romney-the-47-pay-taxes-too/

trojanma
11-07-2012, 10:09 PM
Are honestly trotting out the 47% dont pay taxes drivel. Which has been debunked.

The percentage of working age people who don't pay ANY taxes is 6.9% not 47%

irish fin fan
11-07-2012, 10:22 PM
What you don't understand, my friend, is that although the focus was on "the 1%", anyone who makes enough to pay taxes will come to regret this election. In time, most all Americans will regret this unfortunate decision except those who are completely dependent and only interested in "getting theirs." About 3-4% of households here in the US make $250K+/year and about 47% don't pay any taxes so that leaves roughly 1/2 of the household supposedly not affected by any of this. How long do you think it will be before $100K is the new $250K? Is Washington all of a sudden going to wake up and be fiscally responsible? We just reelected a president, senate, and house that haven't passed a budget in four years and wonder why our country is broke. The answer is to just tax more money in and redistribute it? Do you think the leches will be satisfied in the next election with just pillaging the system? Heck no, their vote will be far more expensive the next time around and taxes will be on the rise again. People have grown accustomed to government handouts and nothing short of cataclysmic collapse will wean them, I fear.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

I'm here listening to Fox News and all I'm hearing is how the "getting theirs" now wins the elections due to their numbers. Whatever, call it blowback from Bush destroying the economy.

The Republicans in their current form will not win an election. They need to throw out the extreme right, become more moderate and cross the isle for the good of the country to solve the fiscal issues affecting this country. The tax rates in the country are the lowest since the 1950's and to hear people moan about taxes going up is laughable. Would I enjoy paying mores taxes? Hell no. Would I pay more for getting the country fiscally balanced, a proper educational system, investment in infrastructure and r&d, grudgingly yes.

Obama ran for his second term in the worst economy for generations and the republicans still couldn't beat him. Republicans, give us a choice because right now you do not offer a choice but a look into a family asylum full of crazies only the crazies would vote for.

TheWalrus
11-07-2012, 10:26 PM
What you don't understand, my friend, is that although the focus was on "the 1%", anyone who makes enough to pay taxes will come to regret this election. In time, most all Americans will regret this unfortunate decision except those who are completely dependent and only interested in "getting theirs." About 3-4% of households here in the US make $250K+/year and about 47% don't pay any taxes so that leaves roughly 1/2 of the household supposedly not affected by any of this. How long do you think it will be before $100K is the new $250K? Is Washington all of a sudden going to wake up and be fiscally responsible? We just reelected a president, senate, and house that haven't passed a budget in four years and wonder why our country is broke. The answer is to just tax more money in and redistribute it? Do you think the leches will be satisfied in the next election with just pillaging the system? Heck no, their vote will be far more expensive the next time around and taxes will be on the rise again. People have grown accustomed to government handouts and nothing short of cataclysmic collapse will wean them, I fear.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

"I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization."

-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

JamesBW43
11-07-2012, 10:46 PM
You would think even the most delusional person could recognize reality when basic mathematics is involved. Governor Romney had such a small margin of error in this election. There was no way around it. The math was simple. Anyone who honestly thought Romney was a sure thing, or even a favorite, needs to look in the mirror and wonder just how far gone are you. And if you can't even see simple numbers clearly, how can you think you see something as complex as public policy clearly?

CRAZYDOLFAN305
11-07-2012, 10:52 PM
What you don't understand, my friend, is that although the focus was on "the 1%", anyone who makes enough to pay taxes will come to regret this election. In time, most all Americans will regret this unfortunate decision except those who are completely dependent and only interested in "getting theirs." About 3-4% of households here in the US make $250K+/year and about 47% don't pay any taxes so that leaves roughly 1/2 of the household supposedly not affected by any of this. How long do you think it will be before $100K is the new $250K? Is Washington all of a sudden going to wake up and be fiscally responsible? We just reelected a president, senate, and house that haven't passed a budget in four years and wonder why our country is broke. The answer is to just tax more money in and redistribute it? Do you think the leches will be satisfied in the next election with just pillaging the system? Heck no, their vote will be far more expensive the next time around and taxes will be on the rise again. People have grown accustomed to government handouts and nothing short of cataclysmic collapse will wean them, I fear.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

C'mon Buddy now that the election is over you're still going to continue to spew their talking points, which has been proven to be factually wrong. And you seem so mad about who is grown accustomed to government hand outs. This is False, And I don't want to get in a back and forth with you. You seem intelligent enough. I already showed you were all your tax dollars are allocated. You're not paying for anyone's hand out.



9450

irish fin fan
11-07-2012, 10:55 PM
How is my logic flawed? Please demonstrate your assertion to be true.

Because you lost the election or are you going to apply your powers of "logic" arguing that is not the case?

CRAZYDOLFAN305
11-07-2012, 11:06 PM
"But since I write about tax and budget issues, let me make a few serious points about the 46.4% of American households who paid no federal income taxes for 2011. First of all, according to the Tax Policy Center, more than 60% of those non-income tax paying households did pay federal payroll taxes—meaning Social Security and Medicare taxes. (Considering all Americans households, including those that owed income tax, 62% paid more in payroll taxes than in federal income taxes.)

What of the 18.1% of U.S. households that paid neither income nor payroll taxes? More than half of them were headed by a senior–in other words, by someone who paid payroll taxes and likely some income taxes too, in the past. (No, the amount the elderly have paid in does not cover the cost of the Medicare benefits they are now getting. And that is true despite the fact that in a Romney TV ad attacking Obamacare’s cuts to the growth in Medicare spending"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2012/09/17/memo-to-mitt-romney-the-47-pay-taxes-too/

And this is one of the primary reasons why they really thought they would win, even after the facts, they will still continue to spew the talking points..SMDH..

What they don't understand or ever will is Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor is a classical political-economic argument, stating that in the advanced capitalist societies state policies assure that more resources flow to the rich than to the poor, for example in form of transfer payments. The term corporate welfare is widely used to describe the bestowal of favorable treatment to particular corporations by the government. One of the most commonly raised forms of criticism are statements that the capitalist political economy toward large corporations allows them to "privatize profits and socialize losses.The argument has been raised and cited on many occasions.

The phrase may have been first popularized by Michael Harrington's 1962 book The Other America in which Harrington cited Charles Abrams, well-known authority on housing.
Andrew Young has been cited for calling the United States system “socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor”, and Martin Luther King, Jr. frequently used this wording in his speeches. Since at least 1969, Gore Vidal used the expression “free enterprise for the poor and socialism for the rich” to describe the U.S. economic policies. Vidal used it as well since the 1980s for expressing his critique of Reagonomics.

In winter 2006/2007, in response to criticism about oil imports from Venezuela, that country being under the leadership of Hugo Chávez, the founder and president of Citizens Energy Corporation Joseph P. Kennedy II countered with a critique of the U.S. system which he characterized as “a kind of socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor that leaves the most vulnerable out in the cold”. Also Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has become known for expressing to large audiences that the United States is now a land of “socialism for the rich and brutal capitalism for the poor”.

Economist Dean Baker expressed similar views in his book The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer, in which he pointed out several different policy areas in which government intervention is essential to preserving and enhancing wealth in the hands of a few.

Linguist Noam Chomsky has criticized the way in which free market principles have been applied. He has argued that the wealthy use free-market rhetoric to justify imposing greater economic risk upon the lower classes, while being insulated from the rigours of the market by the political and economic advantages that such wealth affords. He remarked, "the free market is socialism for the rich—[free] markets for the poor and state protection for the rich."

Arguments along a similar line were raised in connection with the financial turmoil in 2008. With regard to the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Ron Blackwell, chief economist of AFL-CIO, used the expression “Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor” to characterize the system. In September 2008, the US Senator from Vermont, Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders said regarding the bailout of the U.S. financial system: “This is the most extreme example that I can recall of socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor”. The same month, economist Nouriel Roubini stated: “It is pathetic that Congress did not consult any of the many professional economists that have presented […] alternative plans that were more fair and efficient and less costly ways to resolve this crisis. This is again a case of privatizing the gains and socializing the losses; a bailout and socialism for the rich, the well-connected and Wall Street”.

Former U.S. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich adapted this phrase on The Daily Show on October 16, 2008: "We have socialism for the rich, and capitalism for everyone else."
Journalist John Pilger included the phrase in his speech accepting Australia's human rights award, the Sydney Peace Prize, on 5th November 2009: "Democracy has become a business plan, with a bottom line for every human activity, every dream, every decency, every hope. The main parliamentary parties are now devoted to the same economic policies - socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor - and the same foreign policy of servility to endless war. This is not democracy. It is to politics what McDonalds is to food."

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders referenced the phrase during his eight-and-a-half-hour speech on the senate floor on December 10, 2010 against the continuation of Bush-era tax cuts, when speaking on the federal bailout of major financial institutions at a time when small-businesses were being denied loans.

http://bit.ly/16QxUY

They don't see things like this, they are just so focus on hating the so call free-loaders! When the real free-loaders are big business!